That's a pretty unfair description that I don't think anyone would sign up to.Alex123 wrote:I take it to mean an unjustifiable set of beliefs or faith.
Metta,
Retro.
That's a pretty unfair description that I don't think anyone would sign up to.Alex123 wrote:I take it to mean an unjustifiable set of beliefs or faith.
What do you mean unfair? Religion is a set of beliefs on faith. It is not philosophy (where reason is used rather than blind faith) or when you yourself seek the truth.retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,
That's a pretty unfair description that I don't think anyone would sign up to.Alex123 wrote:I take it to mean an unjustifiable set of beliefs or faith.
Metta,
Retro.
To conflate 'The Kingdom of heaven' and Nibbana, and to suggest that the Buddha 'might' also agree is, well, very far removed from this wanderer's understanding of his (the Buddha's) teaching......"The Kingdom of heaven (nibbana)..."...(and which Gotama might also agree)...
But it feels good.appicchato wrote:To conflate 'The Kingdom of heaven' and Nibbana, and to suggest that the Buddha 'might' also agree is, well, very far removed from this wanderer's understanding of his (the Buddha's) teaching......"The Kingdom of heaven (nibbana)..."...(and which Gotama might also agree)...
Yes, I know what you mean, venerable.appicchato wrote:To conflate 'The Kingdom of heaven' and Nibbana, and to suggest that the Buddha 'might' also agree is, well, very far removed from this wanderer's understanding of his (the Buddha's) teaching......"The Kingdom of heaven (nibbana)..."...(and which Gotama might also agree)...
That still seems unnecessarily restrictive. In his paper Atheism and Religion, Michael Martin summarizes the defining factors of the concept of religion as philosophical, ethical, and soteriological responses to certain questions, as offered by Monroe and Elizabeth Beardsley in Philosophical Thinking: An Introduction:Alex123 wrote:Religion is a set of beliefs on faith. It is not philosophy (where reason is used rather than blind faith) or when you yourself seek the truth.
Buddhism doesn't fit neatly within any of the three categories which westerners most often try to squeeze it into - religion, philosophy or science - but rather covers a little of each of them. Michael Martin's definition of religion is broader than usual and makes it fit Buddhism much better than usual; that's probably good. However, I'm not totally sure that the definition is narrow enough to be useful. Wouldn't it describe Secular Humanism as a religion? Marxism? Psychotherapy?Ñāṇa wrote:That still seems unnecessarily restrictive. In his paper Atheism and Religion, Michael Martin summarizes the defining factors of the concept of religion as philosophical, ethical, and soteriological responses to certain questions, as offered by Monroe and Elizabeth Beardsley in Philosophical Thinking: An Introduction:Alex123 wrote:Religion is a set of beliefs on faith. It is not philosophy (where reason is used rather than blind faith) or when you yourself seek the truth.
- Arguing that one cannot define “religion” in terms of a belief in god or in a soul because such beliefs are not found among all religions, they propose that “religion” be defined in terms of the attempt to answer basic religious questions. These are the following:
- (1) What are the fundamental characteristics of human beings and the chief problems they face?
(2) What are the characteristics of nonhuman reality that are of greatest significance for human life?
(3) Given the nature of man and the universe, how should men try to live?
(4) Given the answers to the first three questions, what practices will best develop and sustain in men an understanding of the nature of human and nonhuman reality and a dedication to the ideal of human life?
(5) In seeking true answers to the first four questions, what method or methods should be used?
Yes, very much so, and sports.Kim O'Hara wrote: Wouldn't it describe Secular Humanism as a religion? Marxism? Psychotherapy?
It's Monroe and Elizabeth Beardsley's criteria, paraphrased by Martin. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the Beardsley's text: Philosophical Thinking: An Introduction.Kim O'Hara wrote:Buddhism doesn't fit neatly within any of the three categories which westerners most often try to squeeze it into - religion, philosophy or science - but rather covers a little of each of them. Michael Martin's definition of religion is broader than usual and makes it fit Buddhism much better than usual; that's probably good.
"Religion" is a slippery term. In the paper Atheism and Religion, Martin addresses this as follows:Kim O'Hara wrote:However, I'm not totally sure that the definition is narrow enough to be useful. Wouldn't it describe Secular Humanism as a religion? Marxism? Psychotherapy?
Some, yes. And in fact no different than in some other religions.retrofuturist wrote: Are Buddhist beliefs "unjustifiable", for example?
In suttas there is belief in Gods, hell beings, angels (devas). There is belief that death is not the end and one is reborn if one didn't follow Buddhist path and become an Arahant or a Buddha.Ñāṇa wrote:Arguing that one cannot define “religion” in terms of a belief in god or in a soul because such beliefs are not found among all religions,
Human being is made of 5 Khandhas... Chief problem is Dukkha caused by craving (taṇhā)...Ñāṇa wrote: (1) What are the fundamental characteristics of human beings and the chief problems they face?
If one does not get off samsara or becomes an Aryan, one can still be reborn in hell realms. So we are in very dangerous position.Ñāṇa wrote: (2) What are the characteristics of nonhuman reality that are of greatest significance for human life?
Keep 5 (or more precepts), follow Noble Eightfold Path...Ñāṇa wrote: (3) Given the nature of man and the universe, how should men try to live?
Vipassana, Samatha... Sīla, dāna (especially to the Bhikkhus), samādhi...Ñāṇa wrote: (4) Given the answers to the first three questions, what practices will best develop and sustain in men an understanding of the nature of human and nonhuman reality and a dedication to the ideal of human life?
(5) In seeking true answers to the first four questions, what method or methods should be used?
3) His biography is contradictory. We know the popular story about a rich prince who at age of 29 sneaked with the help of Channa the charioteer from the palace at night leaving his kingdom, wife and day old child.The Buddha is on the whole an allegorical fiction these days, and we don't really know if he was ever anything more. Close attention to our earliest textual authorities reveals no recorded first name. The name Siddhartha appears only in later sources. His supposed surname was from one of the oldest and most prestigious Brahmin lineages mentioned in the Ṛgveda: Gotama (=most cows) from which we get the Surname Gautama (meaning ‘related to [the ancestor] Gotama). This is not a name that Kṣatriya can have been called, let alone someone who was most likely entirely outside the Brahmanical varṇa system. where I copied this
Apparently in this story:
- Even in the prime of youth, with black hair, against the wish of mother and father, when they were crying with tearing eyes, I shaved head and beard, donned yellow robes leaving the household became homeless. mn36
The text reinforces his young age with several terms: dahara, yobbana and paṭhama vaya. The word dahara means 'little, a young boy, a youth'. Buddhaghosa glosses it with taruṇa 'a tender young age, esp. a young calf'. The second word, yobbana, also means 'a youth'. The phrase paṭhama vaya means in 'the first stage of life', as opposed to middle age and old age. However the text also says he shaves off hair and beard (kesa-massuṃ ohāretvā) and this is common to all of the various narratives of the Buddha's going forth. Unless this is simply a stock phrase the youth must have passed puberty, and had a year or two to grow a beard. But not much more: if we were to describe a grown man as 'a boy' or 'a youth' it would seem awkward at best. I think we could say that this is describing a youth of 15 or 16. The tradition later made him 29, which is into middle-age by the standards of the day. link
- or could it rather be, that's what we want to find.In a sense, the modern Buddhist is trying to get at the more ancient and more traditional buddhism [or more correctly, Dhamma], and what we are finding is a Buddha who looks a lot more like a modern scientist.